|
|||||||
| Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#31 (permalink) | |||
|
Facilitator
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Where people kill 30 million pigs per year
Posts: 2,014
|
Quote:
![]() Good point about Rolling Stone's criterion #5. It's a little like saying a good movie has to have good production, which seems obviously false, since some great movies have poor production, even lacking color (GASP!). The idea of the degree to which a song fulfills its purpose (conceived by the composer or musician) intrigues me. I like that criterion. That explains why I can admire a song that I may dislike in many other ways. Songs like "My Humps." Er... actually I don't admire that song even though it *does* fulfill its purpose. :/ But I still like the criterion you've added! Quote:
This sort of analysis of music, like other forms of art criticism or appreciation, may seem academic and rather like the horror of killing a beautiful butterfly and then putting a pin through it, but seeking to understand *why* different music appeals to different people and why many people may appreciate the same song is fun to me. I want to understand the allure of music by going beyond "I like it" or "I don't like it." Add in brain scans of people listening to music, and it would be even better! ![]() Thinking about my own criteria for judging music that I like or don't like challenges me to break down a "gut" reaction and try to understand it. I think the music someone likes is similar to a personality test and may reveal a lot about a person, even to herself or himself. Music is the psyche, turned into sound.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by VEGANGELICA; 11-03-2011 at 03:22 AM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|